Any woman turning on the radio in South Carolina this morning will not be hearing those ubiquitous ads for washing powder, toothpaste or nappies that normally clamour for her vote at the supermarket. Instead, with the next Republican presidential primary on Saturday, local radio has been taken hostage by candidates anxious to redirect her from the aisles of Safeway to the ballot box.
But curiously, what they are selling over the airwaves in their bid to become president isn't the usual troika of tax cuts, education and jobs, but abortion. While Democrats, whose next round of primaries is on March 7, swear black and blue they will protect abortion rights, Republicans promise that if they take the White House, abortion will be abolished.
"If you want a strongly pro-life president, then on February 19, don't support John McCain," exhorts one radio advertisement paid for by the National Right to Life Committee. It ran in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, and will continue to air wherever underdog Senator John McCain campaigns against Texas Governor George W Bush for the Republican nomination.
"I'm going to set a goal that says the unborn ought to be protected in law and welcomed to life. That ought to be a national goal. And the first step is to have a president who values life," Bush states continually.
Ever since primary season began in January, both Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley, and Republicans McCain and Bush, have been talking nonstop about their stands on reproductive rights. The question is why. Abortion has never decided the outcome of a primary vote or a federal election. A recent poll found only 14% of Americans want abortion banned. So why the great debate?
"Abortion has become the new litmus test for presidential candidates," explains New York political columnist Danielle Crittenden. "If you declare yourself pro-life, what it means is you are solid on social conservative issues, you respect the family - all these issues the pro-life movement has tied to the abortion issue. And if you declare yourself pro-choice, you are saying you are sound on women's issues. Abortion has become symbolic beyond the actual procedure. It is a way to tell voters what side of the political spectrum you are on."
In an election year in which there are few major issues defining the campaign - the American economy is booming, unemployment and crime are down, dot.com millionaires sprout like poppies - coupled with a ferocious two-man race for each party's nomination (in 1996 Clinton and Dole ran uncontested), abortion is a useful way to divide and conquer the competition.
"The candidates are so indistinguishable on tax cuts and healthcare that they are using abortion as a wedge issue," explains Dr Leslie Wolfe, director of the Center for Women's Policy Studies, a feminist think-tank in Washington DC. "But the real issue is the gender gap. It was the women's vote that put Bill Clinton into office - twice - and all the candidates need women at the polls. So the conservatives are appealing to pro-life women and the democrats are appealing to pro-choice women, hoping the single issue will draw them out on primary day."
Wolfe says it certainly will draw pro-choice women to the ballot box because the next president will in all likelihood appoint up to five new judges to the Supreme Court (a number are due to retire). "Pro-choice women are taking this primary season very seriously because there is a real danger that Roe vs Wade [the 1973 decision legalising abortion] could be reversed if pro-life judges are appointed."
The fact that abortion has come to dominate this primary campaign might have caught some off-guard, but seasoned campaign watchers say they saw it coming. In 1992, after the Supreme court reaffirmed Roe vs Wade, pro-life Republicans, the majority of whom live in the Bible Belt, demanded that their party beef up its commitment to overturning abortion rights.
By 1996, the pro-life wing had organised in an attempt to influence the election agenda. Though small in number, they proved militant and media savvy, and unlike many election voters, they turned out for primaries. This year they continue to agitate and with the campaign now heading South, there are more crucial pro-life votes for the picking. The real problem for Republican candidates in South Carolina on Saturday will be pulling off the trick of appealing to hardcore right-to-lifers who swing primary votes, without alienating voters, the majority of whom are pro-choice, come November.
For John McCain, who in 86 votes in Congress voted 82 times against any abortion funding, this dilemma is acute. Despite his voting record, he now declares himself a pro-lifer who would not, however, overturn Roe vs Wade, because "outlawing abortion would drive women to illegal and dangerous operations".
While dismissed as a sellout by the extreme rightwing, McCain's blatant attempt to appeal to pro-choice conservative and independent women worked. They turned out in their droves to vote for him in New Hampshire and some political observers suggest another upset win in South Carolina on Saturday.
In response to McCain's having a bet each way, Governor Bush has hardened his stance considerably, hoping to secure the pro-life votes McCain has surrendered. While Bush once said he supported abortion in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, he now insists he would overturn Roe and pass a human-life amendment to the Constitution without the three exceptions.
"Bush is appealing to the extreme right wing of the party right now," Crittenden says. "But he could never be that extreme during a general election without alienating voters."
Curiously, the in-fighting is just as aggressive among Democratic candidates, despite both Gore and Bradley promising to protect reproductive rights and veto any legislation that bans late-term abortions. Bradley, who has so far suffered defeats in Iowa, New Hampshire and Delaware, is trailing with female voters and the pressure to lure them and keep his candidacy alive is intense. As he and Gore differ on so little else, Bradley has settled on abortion to sabotage Gore's nomination chances. Seizing on Gore's voting record during 1977-1984, when he opposed federal funding for abortions, and an old letter in which Gore said: "Abortion is arguably the taking of a human life," Bradley has hammered the vice president in South Carolina, damaging his credibility with pro-choice women.
Gore, who says he would "no longer use that phrasing today", is furious that Bradley is insinuating that he is simply trawling for votes. "For far too long, some politicians have been willing to play with the issue of choice for their own personal political ambition," Gore said last week at a fund-raiser organised by women activists. "So I say to Senator Bradley, stop trying to divide us on the issue of choice. It's time to join hands and fight the real enemy in the Republican party." But Bradley, having found Gore's weak spot, just keeps pressing it.
"The struggle between Bradley and Gore is ridiculous because they are both as pro-choice as politicians get," Wolfe says. "The good thing is that, come November, this issue will not loom so large because we will have one clear pro-choice and one pro-life candidate, and they can move on to other issues."
On Saturday, South Carolinians will decide whether they want Bush or McCain to be their next president. While McCain is being touted to women as the lesser of two evils in the abortion debate, Wolfe is not so sure. "What would be worse for women, McCain or Bush? The answer is both of them. McCain's voting record is very anti-women, he is not a supporter of reproductive rights, and Bush will roll back Roe vs Wade. If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, the only answer is a Democratic candidate."
